Phrag. fischeri

[John M]

Thanks Kyle. I don't have any angle and don't mean to come off as confrontational. I just find it very frustrating that there isn't more information and photos available. There is a real mystery surrounding this species; almost as if there is some sort of conspiracy going on.....which is crazy of course. However, the discovery of the type specimen was suspect at first ..... at least until it was proven to breed true. Then, the lack of information following has fed the whole mystery. I'm just curious; as I am sure are many other people.


I love to see photos of orchids in-situ. I remember when besseae was new and photos of blooming plants in-situ began to show up in the literature. I drooled over those photos many times. The same can be said for kovachii. I've just found it very frustrating that fischeri has been around for a long time now and the information is sketchy at best. It does breed true, so obviously it is a true species; but, the lack of information and photos in-situ is very perplexing.....and frustrating for an enthusiast like me. I guess my frustration came through in my post above. Sorry if it seemed like I was challenging you. Up until now, I hadn't heard that fischeri had been found in the wild and I thought that all Phrag. fischeri in cultivation are decendents of that one plant found amongst the shipment of schlimiis. So, when you posted your comment about posting photos and where it grows in the wild, that REALLY caught my attention. I wanted to know how you knew this. Had you been to the site? If not, was your information from a credible source? Were the photos that you posted of in-situ plants? Can you post a link to the photos that you posted? Etc.

About Ecuagenera. Even if they were disorganized back when fischeri was brand new to science. For one plant to show up in a bunch of schlimiis, someone MUST have gone to the fischeri site in the wild and collected that plant. If the site is so terribly remote and difficult to get to, why would they collect just one plant? It seems more reasonable that they would've collected many plants. Where are they now? Who collected them? Etc., etc., etc. There are still a lot of questions that can be asked. The provinence of fischeri is still rather clouded in mystery.

Kyle, I supposed in a nutshell, my point is this: Your comment ("I've posted pictures in the past. It grows on the Colombian/ecuadorian border."), was very "matter of fact". Yet, to me, this was ground breaking news, not long established fact. I hadn't heard this before. So, this is exciting news to me. Now I'm filled with questions and renewed curiosity to know "what's the deal" with Phrag. fischeri?....what is it's full story?

 

[nikv]

I'm curious too, which is why I posed the question in the first place. It's nice to know that there's a bit more genetic diversity in this species than just one plant. Sorta reminds me of Paph. delenatii before its rediscovery.

 

[gonewild]

About Ecuagenera. Even if they were disorganized back when fischeri was brand new to science. For one plant to show up in a bunch of schlimiis, someone MUST have gone to the fischeri site in the wild and collected that plant. If the site is so terribly remote and difficult to get to, why would they collect just one plant? It seems more reasonable that they would've collected many plants. Where are they now? Who collected them? Etc., etc., etc. There are still a lot of questions that can be asked. The provinence of fischeri is still rather clouded in mystery.

Most likely they did not collect the plants themselves. Likely they purchase collected plants from local people that don't understand what they are actually collecting or the importance of remembering where a particular plant was found. The collector probably could have remembered where they were collecting but how much time passed before the new plant was noticed? Euc. probably does not have any idea who actually pulled the plant from the wild or where it came from. If they actually did know the location more plants would be circulating by now regardless of the remoteness of the location.

 

[Kyle]

Lance pretty much has it. Except, ecuagenera does know where the plants are. They have brought people to the site before. I think Tom was supposed to go a few years back, but never ended up going.

I don't know what happened when the plant was discovered, but for the trained eye, fischerii sticks out like a soar thumb in a pile or bench of schlimii.

Frankc is the only reason I know who has been to the site. Ecuagenera has taken people there, but they don't like to. It is very difficult to get to and is in a politically sensitive area.

I'm happy to answer any question.

On a related note, I have never seen schlimii insitu or heard of anyone seeing them in the wild.

 

[gonewild]

g.

Frankc is the only reason I know who has been to the site. Ecuagenera has taken people there, but they don't like to. It is very difficult to get to and is in a politically sensitive area.

Politically sensitive for what reason? Indigenous peoples land or narco?
What part of Ecuador are they found? In Shuar territory?

On a related note, I have never seen schlimii insitu or heard of anyone seeing them in the wild.

Interesting. fischeri was collected mixed in a batch of schlimi and the fischeri location is known but the schlimi location is not? Is that correct?

 

[Kyle]

Political and narcotics. Frank would know more, but I know the jungles along the border region with Columbia wasn't a pace ecuagenera liked bringing tourists or liked traveling themselves.

I don't know if it was collected at the same time, or we're just placed side by side in a greenhouse. I suspect ecuagenera knew what they had, but it got sent to a show by accident by an employee who didn't know better.

I'm sure the location of schlimii is known, but I've never heard of anyone going there. If John thinks the mystery around fischerii is wierd, I think it weirder surrounding schlimii which has been known to science for 100+ years.

Kyle

 

[John M]

Thanks for the replies Kyle and Lance. It seems that there is still a lot of unknown "facts" and the mystery continues.........

Most likely they did not collect the plants themselves. Likely they purchase collected plants from local people that don't understand what they are actually collecting or the importance of remembering where a particular plant was found. The collector probably could have remembered where they were collecting but how much time passed before the new plant was noticed? Euc. probably does not have any idea who actually pulled the plant from the wild or where it came from. If they actually did know the location more plants would be circulating by now regardless of the remoteness of the location.

Of course Lance, I'm capable of making similar guesses. What I was looking for were proven facts and in-situ photos. 'Not trying to be difficult; but your reply makes a lot of assumptions and leaps of faith, based on reasonable logic, as indictated in red. Unfortunately, reasonable logic and leaps of faith prove nothing. I was originally wondering if Kyle had more information that was undeniable and which was properly documented, not just hearsay. Without lots of photos of the habitat showing blooming plants and information directly from someone who has been to the habitat, it's still all hearsay. Nothing is proven yet.

Interesting fact about schlimii, Kyle. I hadn't realized that nobody knows where schlimii grows in nature. That certainly is odd, considering how long it's been in cultivation!

 

[Kyle]

It isn't hearsay. If you want to go to the site, I can arrange it. It exists. I can probably get the GPS coordinates, but those would be much use. But I have seen very few photos, not many.

I'm sure people in Columbia know exactly where schlimii can be found. I find it curious that no one visits those sites. Again, if you really want to go there, I bet it can be done for the right price.

Kyle

 

[gonewild]

'Not trying to be difficult; but your reply makes a lot of assumptions and leaps of faith, based on reasonable logic, as indictated in red. Unfortunately, reasonable logic and leaps of faith prove nothing.

No logic or leaps of faith involved at all. I have lived and worked ("collected") in South America for a lot of time and I know how the "culture" functions. I don't have any faith in anything I am told from anyone down there and logic does not apply either. On top of that since photoshop found it's way into that environment I don't trust simple photos either. Before I would believe the photo you linked to showing fischeri in situ I would need to see more pictures because to me that image with the flower looks suspicious and as you say proves nothing.

I was originally wondering if Kyle had more information that was undeniable and which was properly documented, not just hearsay. Without lots of photos of the habitat showing blooming plants and information directly from someone who has been to the habitat, it's still all hearsay. Nothing is proven yet.

I absolutely agree. I have never thought a biologist or taxonomist should be able to describe a species unless they have either collected the specimen themselves or collaborated with the collector. Without positive knowledge of the location no species should be accepted as valid. And more than one specimen should be required.

 

[gonewild]

Again, if you really want to go there, I bet it can be done for the right price.

Kyle

And what is the going rate for ransom payments this month?

 

[Rick]

Does anyone have any better info for Phrag andreettae or manzurii?

David Manzur certainly has info on manzurii (he thought it was a weird schlimii when he collected it) and has been collecting Phrags from around Columbia to grow at his own place.

Andreettae is purported to come from the same area as fisherii (I think that's your inormation Kyle).

I could be just one big species/hybrid swarm mess of schlimii - fisherii going on at the Columbia/Ecudor boarder. Maybe just clinal variation, like the mess of Paph. praestens - wilhelminea

Every new patch of plants could end up being a different species.:sob:

 

[NYEric]

I've heard you can get andreetae cheap in Ecua. I would not mess around the the Narcos and Politico-fighters in the area of the Columbian/Ecuadorian border!

 

[tomkalina]

I was planninga trip to Phrag. fischeri habitat a couple of years ago but ended up in the hospital with a kidney stone four days before the trip was scheduled! Anyone who has ever endured one of these can agree that I would rather have been in Ecuador!

As Kyle said, the only person I've heard of that's actually visited the Phrag. fischeri habitat recently was Frank Cervera, supposedly for the purpose of shooting a marketing video for Ecuagenera. Pepe Portilla was supposed to have accompanied him. Beyond that, I don't know of anyone who has visited the habitat because of the politically sensitive nature of the area.

The whole question of the schlimii/andreetae/fischeri/manzuri swarm found in northern Ecuador/southern Columbia would make an interesting thesis for an aspiring PhD botany candidate......

 

[Rick]

The whole question of the schlimii/andreetae/fischeri/manzuri swarm found in northern Ecuador/southern Columbia would make an interesting thesis for an aspiring PhD botany candidate......

Somebody may be already doing that. I guess they need to go to David Manzur's farm!


http://www.lankesteriana.ucr.ac.cr/..._/Numero por secciones/04 Higgins&Viveros.pdf

I also went through the kidney stone ordeal Tom. I'd think I'd give remote Ecuador a try instead of doing that again too:sob:

 

[Kyle]

And what is the going rate for ransom payments this month?

I've heard things have really calmed down in Columbia. For me, the barrier is that guides in Columbia think anyone from north America is rich, and thus, they charge high rates. It is much more affordable to go to Peru and Ecuador to see insitu orchids.

Andrettea was quite common in Ecuador when I was there a year ago.

I have not doubt that fischerii, andrettea and schlimii are un related species and are not part of any kind of hybrid swarm. Manzurii on the other hand, is very closely related to schlimii. If I knew more about the geography I would use subspecies.

 

[gonewild]

I have a friend that recently tried to collect fish in Columbia. It is safe in towns but the remote areas are very unsafe for gringos. The problem is at any moment you may cross paths with the wrong group of people.

 

[NYEric]

Thanks for the link.

 

[ORG]

Really a curious discussion.
On one side a person who has the knowledge about Phrag. fischeri and who has visited the habitat. On the other side persons without any confidence in the informations from Kyle.
When you don't trust Kyle why you would like to discuss with him.
For me it is easier. I know Kyle a longer time and trust him. On the other side I had the possibility to visit the habitat of Phrag. fischeri and to find also a plant in flower and some without. We had only a short time to seek along the river directly on the border to Colombia. And we did not collect any plant, we made only pictures for a coming publication.
But I have seen also old pictures from Colombia around 35 years ago with Phrag. fischeri in the wild, determined as Phrag. schlimii.
About Phrag. andreettae. I get from a friend pictures from the habitat of this nice species from Colombia. It is not so easy to get the pictures and the informations. You must have time and the other persons must trust you, then you have sometimes the possibility to get also the pictures of the habitat.

Phragmipedium andreettae flowered in Europe also from seedlings which came in flasks to Europe some years ago. This species shall grow not so far away from some habitats of fischeri in Colombia. So perhaps also a natural hybrid exists.

Best greetings

Olaf

 

[gonewild]

When you don't trust Kyle why you would like to discuss with him.

Olaf

Just to make it clear I trust information from Kyle and never said otherwise. What I said was that I did not trust the information that is linked to from this thread (a single photo) and a species description based on one specimen from an unknown location. I don't think Kyle represented anything here as fact but rather the best info that he had been told.

It's only a discussion that perhaps the photos and info you have will provide answers for, once you publish them

 

[John M]

I have no reason to distrust Kyle either. However, there is a difference between repeating information you've been told by others and gathering that information yourself. If Kyle had been to the fischeri habitat himself and recorded habitat information and taken photos, I'd believe his every word. But, I reserve the right for healthy scepticism when the information is from someone else which has been passed along by word of mouth and then: it's presented as fact without being backed up by published photos and habitat documentation.

BTW, Olaf: Nobody here in this discussion has been to the fischeri habitat. You have misunderstood the thread.

I don't think Kyle represented anything here as fact but rather the best info that he had been told.

Exactly....and that's hearsay....a.k.a. rumour. Check the dictionary. I wanted to know if proof exists, not just information being passed from person to person.